Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Lance Uppercut has responded, but before I dispose of him, let's take a look at his insignia:

Lance claims to have copyrighted that. I have copyrighted a book, a screenplay, and I have also copyrighted a piece of music, so I know what's involved. And it's hard to believe that he went to the trouble for that. Why copyright multiple errors? First, the guy wasn't Lovelady; he was Oswald. And second, even if he had been Lovelady, he certainly could not have been standing like that. 

You see, Lance is ignorant. He doesn't realize that his implication that the man was standing there with his head upright in a neutral position (parallel with the white column, and you know the column was vertical) but with his shoulders and torso leaning such that the horizontal lines on his shirt appear very sloping IS IMPOSSIBLE. 

You see, a lean is something that you do with your spinal column. You don't do it with your shoulders. Your shoulders just go along for the ride. And the purpose of leaning is, almost always, to get your head, including your eyes, somewhere that they need to be, so that you can see something or do something. But, Doorman's head hasn't gone anywhere. It's as straight as telephone pole. So, how could he be leaning? Why would he be leaning? And what basis is there to think that he is leaning? I'm afraid Lance's insignia is a caricature, a cartoon. And as you know, anything goes in a cartoon- even orthopedic impossibilities. However, there were no orthopedic impossibilities going on in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository. 

But, this time, Lance is denying that the figure in front of the Dal-Tex building was Danny Arce. 

And what is the basis for his denial? First, he claims that the spool-like object below the finger-like projection is the man's t-shirt, and since we can't see it on Danny, they can't be the same man. 

Lance, your ASSUMPTION that you have made the correct identification of a t-shirt is, of course, not proof that you are correct. And since that is the ONLY basis on which you are disassociating them, and I don't accept it, your protestations are falling on deaf ears. Let's hone in:

That is not a t-shirt, and I'm afraid that I am unwilling to delve into it any further because: there are some insane ideas that I just won't not entertain. 

The match between this figure and Danny Arce is not vague. Just consider that the only disconnect that Lance cited was his claim of a visible t-shirt on one and not the other. He didn't suggest that their hair was different. He didn't suggest that their eyes were different. He didn't suggest that the shape of their face was different or the length of their forehead. The only thing he cited was the claim of a visible t-shirt on one, and that was about as lame as you can get. Why don't you just admit that it's the same guy?  

I want to point out that I wasn't the first to use the above collage. James Richard has been using it for a long time. Here is how he presents it on his site: with a caption.

Sorry, Lance, but James Richards agrees with me. Or, I should say that I agree with him, since he got to it before I did. In fact, I bet you he said to himself, "Wow, there's Danny Arce." So, don't say that nobody ever said that.    

But, one thing that has puzzled me is that white button. I don't think that Danny's dark coat had white buttons. So, why does it seem like a white button is visible on the left? Well, there is also this image of Danny.

There, he appears to have a white button too. Did he? I doubt it. What I think is that the button was made of a material that tended to reflect the light. So sometimes, when the angle was just right, it would do so.

So, I don't worry about that white button any more. I think that guy's clothes are completely consistent with Danny Arce. 

And while we're at it, doesn't that seem like an awfully heavy coat for such a sunny warm day? Jackie complained about the heat. What are you hiding under there, Danny?  

And no, I don't notice that the car window is obscuring part of his face because it isn't. 

Lance, your ASSUMPTION that you have made the correct identification of a car window is, of course, not proof that you are correct. It's just a mountain of lies, heaped on top of speculation, and then asserted as a fact. Further crap is piled on in defense of the lies. 

(Oops! You spelled it defence, which gave away that you're from the UK, but then again, we already knew that you were one of the UK Ops. Say hello to bpete for me, which should be very easy for you to do.)  

And this shoddy, sensationalist approach is exactly the thing that gives honest researchers a bad press. Except that that's another British expression. In America, we never use it. We say "gives honest researchers a bad name." But hey, you're over there, so when in Rome..."

And since I already demolished bpete's feeble retort about the car, I'll just point out that it's found in the previous two posts. So, dear readers, you may simply scroll down. 

And, that's going to do it for this treatment of Lance Uppercut. Weird choice of alias, don't you think? Maybe it's a British thing.